|Publication number||US7261168 B2|
|Application number||US 11/134,896|
|Publication date||Aug 28, 2007|
|Filing date||May 23, 2005|
|Priority date||May 21, 2004|
|Also published as||CA2558627A1, CA2558627C, US20050257960, WO2005113935A2, WO2005113935A3|
|Publication number||11134896, 134896, US 7261168 B2, US 7261168B2, US-B2-7261168, US7261168 B2, US7261168B2|
|Inventors||Malcolm Douglas McGregor, Glenn C. Gray, James E. Stone, Svetozar Simeonov, Gregory N. Gilbert, Mark A. Proett, James M. Fogal, William Edward Hendricks, Christopher Anthony Maranuk, Jean Michel Beique|
|Original Assignee||Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.|
|Export Citation||BiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan|
|Patent Citations (105), Non-Patent Citations (60), Referenced by (7), Classifications (11), Legal Events (3)|
|External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, Espacenet|
The present application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/573,286, filed May 21, 2004, entitled Methods and Apparatus for Using Formation Property Data, which is hereby incorporated herein by reference.
During the drilling and completion of oil and gas wells, it may be necessary to engage in ancillary operations, such as monitoring the operability of equipment used during the drilling process or evaluating the production capabilities of formations intersected by the wellbore. For example, after a well or well interval has been drilled, zones of interest are often tested to determine various formation properties such as permeability, fluid type, fluid quality, formation temperature, formation pressure, bubblepoint and formation pressure gradient. These tests are performed in order to determine whether commercial exploitation of the intersected formations is viable and how to optimize production.
Wireline formation testers (WFT) and drill stem testing (DST) have been commonly used to perform these tests. The basic DST test tool consists of a packer or packers, valves or ports that may be opened and closed from the surface, and two or more pressure-recording devices. The tool is lowered on a work string to the zone to be tested. The packer or packers are set, and drilling fluid is evacuated to isolate the zone from the drilling fluid column. The valves or ports are then opened to allow flow from the formation to the tool for testing while the recorders chart static pressures. A sampling chamber traps clean formation fluids at the end of the test. WFTs generally employ the same testing techniques but use a wireline to lower the test tool into the well bore after the drill string has been retrieved from the well bore, although WFT technology is sometimes deployed on a pipe string. The wireline tool typically uses packers also, although the packers are placed closer together, compared to drill pipe conveyed testers, for more efficient formation testing. In some cases, packers are not used. In those instances, the testing tool is brought into contact with the intersected formation and testing is done without zonal isolation across the axial span of the circumference of the borehole wall.
WFTs may also include a probe assembly for engaging the borehole wall and acquiring formation fluid samples. The probe assembly may include an isolation pad to engage the borehole wall. The isolation pad seals against the formation and around a hollow probe, which places an internal cavity in fluid communication with the formation. This creates a fluid pathway that allows formation fluid to flow between the formation and the formation tester while isolated from the borehole fluid.
In order to acquire a useful sample, the probe must stay isolated from the relative high pressure of the borehole fluid. Therefore, the integrity of the seal that is formed by the isolation pad is critical to the performance of the tool. If the borehole fluid is allowed to leak into the collected formation fluids, a non-representative sample will be obtained and the test will have to be repeated.
Examples of isolation pads and probes used in WFTs can be found in Halliburton's DT, SFTT, SFT4, and RDT tools. Isolation pads that are used with WFTs are typically rubber pads affixed to the end of the extending sample probe. The rubber is normally affixed to a metallic plate that provides support to the rubber as well as a connection to the probe. These rubber pads are often molded to fit within the specific diameter hole in which they will be operating.
With the use of WFTs and DSTs, the drill string with the drill bit must be retracted from the borehole. Then, a separate work string containing the testing equipment, or, with WFTs, the wireline tool string, must be lowered into the well to conduct secondary operations. Interrupting the drilling process to perform formation testing can add significant amounts of time to a drilling program.
DSTs and WFTs may also cause tool sticking or formation damage. There may also be difficulties of running WFTs in highly deviated and extended reach wells. WFTs also do not have flowbores for the flow of drilling mud, nor are they designed to withstand drilling loads such as torque and weight on bit.
Further, the formation pressure measurement accuracy of drill stem tests and, especially, of wireline formation tests may be affected by filtrate invasion and mudcake buildup because significant amounts of time may have passed before a DST or WFT engages the formation. Mud filtrate invasion occurs when the drilling mud fluids displace formation fluids. Because the mud filtrate ingress into the formation begins at the borehole surface, it is most prevalent there and generally decreases further into the formation. When filtrate invasion occurs, it may become impossible to obtain a representative sample of formation fluids or, at a minimum, the duration of the sampling period must be increased to first remove the drilling fluid and then obtain a representative sample of formation fluids. The mudcake is made up of the solid particles that are plastered to the side of the well by the circulating drilling mud during drilling. The prevalence of the mudcake at the borehole surface creates a “skin.” Thus there may be a “skin effect” because formation testers can only extend relatively short distances into the formation, thereby distorting the representative sample of formation fluids due to the filtrate. The mudcake also acts as a region of reduced permeability adjacent to the borehole. Thus, once the mudcake forms, the accuracy of reservoir pressure measurements decreases, affecting the calculations for permeability and producibility of the formation.
Another testing apparatus is the formation tester while drilling (FTWD) tool. Typical FTWD formation testing equipment is suitable for integration with a drill string during drilling operations. Various devices or systems are used for isolating a formation from the remainder of the borehole, drawing fluid from the formation, and measuring physical properties of the fluid and the formation. For example, the FTWD may use a probe similar to a WFT that extends to the formation and a small sample chamber to draw in formation fluids through the probe to test the formation pressure. To perform a test, the drill string is stopped from rotating and the test procedure, similar to a WFT described above, is performed.
For a more detailed description of the embodiments of the present invention, reference will now be made to the accompanying drawings, wherein:
Certain terms are used throughout the following description and claims to refer to particular system components. This document does not intend to distinguish between components that differ in name but not function.
In the following discussion and in the claims, the terms “including” and “comprising” are used in an open-ended fashion, and thus should be interpreted to mean “including, but not limited to . . . ”. Also, the terms “couple,” “couples”, and “coupled” used to describe any electrical connections are each intended to mean and refer to either an indirect or a direct electrical connection. Thus, for example, if a first device “couples” or is “coupled” to a second device, that interconnection may be through an electrical conductor directly interconnecting the two devices, or through an indirect electrical connection via other devices, conductors and connections. Further, reference to “up” or “down” are made for purposes of ease of description with “up” meaning towards the surface of the borehole and “down” meaning towards the bottom or distal end of the borehole. In addition, in the discussion and claims that follow, it may be sometimes stated that certain components or elements are in fluid communication. By this it is meant that the components are constructed and interrelated such that a fluid could be communicated between them, as via a passageway, tube, or conduit. Also, the designation “MWD” or “LWD” are used to mean all generic measurement while drilling or logging while drilling apparatus and systems.
To understand the mechanics of formation testing, it is important to first understand how hydrocarbons are stored in subterranean formations. Hydrocarbons are not typically located in large underground pools, but are instead found within very small holes, or pore spaces, within certain types of rock. Therefore, it is critical to know certain properties of both the formation and the fluid contained therein. At various times during the following discussion, certain formation and formation fluid properties will be referred to in a general sense. Such formation properties include, but are not limited to: pressure, permeability, viscosity, mobility, spherical mobility, porosity, saturation, coupled compressibility porosity, skin damage, and anisotropy. Such formation fluid properties include, but are not limited to: viscosity, compressibility, flowline fluid compressibility, density, resistivity, composition and bubble point.
Permeability is the ability of a rock formation to allow hydrocarbons to move between its pores, and consequently into a wellbore. Fluid viscosity is a measure of the ability of the hydrocarbons to flow, and the permeability divided by the viscosity is termed “mobility.” Porosity is the ratio of void space to the bulk volume of rock formation containing that void space. Saturation is the fraction or percentage of the pore volume occupied by a specific fluid (e.g., oil, gas, water, etc.). Skin damage is an indication of how the mud filtrate or mud cake has changed the permeability near the wellbore. Anisotropy is the ratio of the vertical and horizontal permeabilities of the formation.
Resistivity of a fluid is the property of the fluid which resists the flow of electrical current. Bubble point occurs when a fluid's pressure is brought down at such a rapid rate, and to a low enough pressure, that the fluid, or portions thereof, changes phase to a gas. The dissolved gases in the fluid are brought out of the fluid so gas is present in the fluid in an undissolved state. Typically, this kind of phase change in the formation hydrocarbons being tested and measured is undesirable, unless the bubblepoint test is being administered to determine what the bubblepoint pressure is.
In the drawings and description that follows, like parts are marked throughout the specification and drawings with the same reference numerals, respectively. The drawing figures are not necessarily to scale. Certain features of the invention may be shown exaggerated in scale or in somewhat schematic form and some details of conventional elements may not be shown in the interest of clarity and conciseness. The present invention is susceptible to embodiments of different forms. Specific embodiments are described in detail and are shown in the drawings, with the understanding that the present disclosure is to be considered an exemplification of the principles of the invention, and is not intended to limit the invention to that illustrated and described herein. It is to be fully recognized that the different teachings of the embodiments discussed below may be employed separately or in any suitable combination to produce desired results. The various characteristics mentioned above, as well as other features and characteristics described in more detail below, will be readily apparent to those skilled in the art upon reading the following detailed description of the embodiments, and by referring to the accompanying drawings.
It should also be understood that, even though the MWD formation tester 10 is illustrated as part of a drill string 5, the embodiments of the invention described below may be conveyed down the borehole 8 via wireline technology, as is partially described above. It should also be understood that the exact physical configuration of the formation tester and the probe assembly is not a requirement of the present invention. The embodiment described below serves to provide an example only. Additional examples of a probe assembly and methods of use are described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/440,593, filed May 19, 2003 and entitled “Method and Apparatus for MWD Formation Testing”; Ser. No. 10/440,835, filed May 19, 2003 and entitled “MWD Formation Tester”; and Ser. No. 10/440,637, filed May 19, 2003 and entitled “Equalizer Valve”; each hereby incorporated herein by reference for all purposes. Further examples of formation testing tools, probe assemblies and methods of use, whether conveyed via a drill string or wireline, or any other method, include U.S. patent application entitled “Downhole Probe Assembly,” having U.S. Express Mail Label Number EV 303483549 US and Ser. No. 11/133,643; U.S. patent application entitled “Formation Tester Tool Assembly and Methods of Use,” having U.S. Express Mail Label Number EV 303483552 US and Ser. No. 11/135,050; U.S. patent application entitled “Methods and Apparatus for Measuring Formation Properties,” having U.S. Express Mail Label Number EV 303483566 US and Ser. No. 11/135,050; U.S. patent application entitled “Methods and Apparatus for Controlling a Formation Tester Tool Assembly,” having U.S. Express Mail Label Number EV 303483362 US and Ser. No. 11/132,475; and U.S. patent application entitled “Methods for Measuring a Formation Supercharge Pressure,” having U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/069,649; each hereby incorporated herein by reference for all purposes.
The formation tester tool 10 is best understood with reference to
Beneath electronics module 30 in housing section 12 a is an adapter insert 34. Adapter 34 connects to sleeve insert 24 c at connection 35 and retains a plurality of spacer rings 36 in a central bore 37 that forms a portion of flowbore 14. Lower end 17 of housing section 12 a connects to housing section 12 b at threaded connection 40. Spacers 38 are disposed between the lower end of adapter 34 and the pin end of housing section 12 b. Because threaded connections such as connection 40, at various times, need to be cut and repaired, the length of sections 12 a, 12 b may vary in length. Employing spacers 36, 38 allow for adjustments to be made in the length of threaded connection 40.
Housing section 12 b includes an inner sleeve 44 disposed therethrough. Sleeve 44 extends into housing section 12 a above, and into housing section 12 c below. The upper end of sleeve 44 abuts spacers 36 disposed in adapter 34 in housing section 12 a. An annular area 42 is formed between sleeve 44 and the wall of housing 12 b and forms a wire way for electrical conductors that extend above and below housing section 12 b, including conductors controlling the operation of formation tester 10 as described below.
Referring now to
As best shown in
Electric motor 64 may be a permanent magnet motor powered by battery packs 20, 22 and capacitor banks 32. Motor 64 is interconnected to and drives hydraulic pump 66. Pump 66 provides fluid pressure for actuating formation probe assembly 50. Hydraulic manifold 62 includes various solenoid valves, check valves, filters, pressure relief valves, thermal relief valves, pressure transducer 160 b and hydraulic circuitry employed in actuating and controlling formation probe assembly 50 as explained in more detail below.
Referring again to
Beneath piston 70 and extending below inner mandrel 52 is a lower oil chamber or reservoir 78, described more fully below. An upper chamber 72 is formed in the annulus between central portion 71 of mandrel 52 and the wall of housing section 12 c, and between spring stop portion 77 and pressure balance piston 70. Spring 76 is retained within chamber 72. Chamber 72 is open through port 74 to annulus 150. As such, drilling fluids will fill chamber 72 in operation. An annular seal 67 is disposed about spring stop portion 77 to prevent drilling fluid from migrating above chamber 72.
Barrier 69 maintains a seal between the drilling fluid in chamber 72 and the hydraulic oil that fills and is contained in oil reservoir 78 beneath piston 70. Lower chamber 78 extends from barrier 69 to seal 65 located at a point generally noted as 83 and just above transducers 160 in
Equalizer valve 60, best shown in
As shown in
Disposed about housing section 12 c adjacent to formation probe assembly 50 is stabilizer 154. Stabilizer 154 may have an outer diameter close to that of nominal borehole size. As explained below, formation probe assembly 50 includes a seal pad 140 that is extendable to a position outside of housing 12 c to engage the borehole wall 151. As explained, probe assembly 50 and seal pad 140 of formation probe assembly 50 are recessed from the outer diameter of housing section 12 c, but they are otherwise exposed to the environment of annulus 150 where they could be impacted by the borehole wall 151 during drilling or during insertion or retrieval of bottom hole assembly 6. Accordingly, being positioned adjacent to formation probe assembly 50, stabilizer 154 provides additional protection to the seal pad 140 during insertion, retrieval and operation of bottom hole assembly 6. It also provides protection to pad 140 during operation of formation tester 10. In operation, a piston extends seal pad 140 to a position where it engages the borehole wall 151. The force of the pad 140 against the borehole wall 151 would tend to move the formation tester 10 in the borehole, and such movement could cause pad 140 to become damaged. However, as formation tester 10 moves sideways within the borehole as the piston is extended into engagement with the borehole wall 151, stabilizer 154 engages the borehole wall and provides a reactive force to counter the force applied to the piston by the formation. In this manner, further movement of the formation test tool 10 is resisted.
Referring still to
Referring again to
As best shown in
Stem 92 includes a circular base portion 105 with an outer flange 106. Extending from base 105 is a tubular extension 107 having central passageway 108. The end of extension 107 includes internal threads at 109. Central passageway 108 is in fluid connection with fluid passageway 91 that, in turn, is in fluid communication with longitudinal fluid chamber or passageway 93, best shown in
Adapter sleeve 94 includes inner end 111 that engages flange 106 of stem number 92. Adapter sleeve 94 is secured within aperture 90 by threaded engagement with mandrel 54 b at segment 110. The outer end 112 of adapter sleeve 94 extends to be substantially flushed with flat 136 formed in housing member 12 c. Circumferentially spaced about the outermost surface of adapter sleeve 94 is a plurality of tool engaging recesses 158. These recesses are employed to thread adapter 94 into and out of engagement with mandrel 54 b. Adapter sleeve 94 includes cylindrical inner surface 113 having reduced diameter portions 114, 115. A seal 116 is disposed in surface 114. Piston 96 is slidingly retained within adapter sleeve 94 and generally includes base section 118 and an extending portion 119 that includes inner cylindrical surface 120. Piston 96 further includes central bore 121.
Snorkel 98 includes a base portion 125, a snorkel extension 126, and a central passageway 127 extending through base 125 and extension 126.
Formation tester apparatus 50 is assembled such that piston base 118 is permitted to reciprocate along surface 113 of adapter sleeve 94. Similarly, snorkel base 125 is disposed within piston 96 and snorkel extension 126 is adapted for reciprocal movement along piston surface 120. Central passageway 127 of snorkel 98 is axially aligned with tubular extension 107 of stem 92 and with screen 100.
Scraper 102 includes a central bore 103, threaded extension 104 and apertures 101 that are in fluid communication with central bore 103. Section 104 threadedly engages internally threaded section 109 of stem extension 107, and is disposed within central bore 132 of screen 100.
Referring now to
As best shown in
To help with a good pad seal, tool 10 may include, among other things, centralizers for centralizing the formation probe assembly 50 and thereby normalizing pad 140 relative to the borehole wall. For example, the formation tester may include centralizing pistons coupled to a hydraulic fluid circuit configured to extend the pistons in such a way as to protect the probe assembly and pad, and also to provide a good pad seal.
The hydraulic circuit 200 used to operate probe assembly 50, equalizer valve 60, and draw down piston 170 is illustrated in
When controller 190 receives a command to initiate formation testing, the drill string has stopped rotating. As shown in
The operation of formation tester 10 is best understood in reference to
Piston 96 and snorkel 98 extend from the position shown in
As seal pad 140 is pressed against the borehole wall, the pressure in circuit 200 rises and when it reaches a predetermined pressure, valve 192 opens so as to close equalizer valve 60, thereby isolating fluid passageway 93 from the annulus. In this manner, valve 192 ensures that valve 60 closes only after the seal pad 140 has entered contact with mudcake 49 that lines borehole wall 151. Passageway 93, now closed to the annulus 150, is in fluid communication with cylinder 175 at the upper end of cylinder 177 in draw down manifold 89, best shown in
With solenoid valve 176 still energized, probe seal accumulator 184 is charged until the system reaches a predetermined pressure, for example 1800 p.s.i., as sensed by pressure transducer 160 b. When that pressure is reached, controller 190 energizes solenoid valve 178 to begin drawdown. Energizing solenoid valve 178 permits pressurized fluid to enter portion 172 a of cylinder 172 causing draw down piston 170 to retract. When that occurs, plunger 174 moves within cylinder 177 such that the volume of fluid passageway 93 increases by the volume of the area of the plunger 174 times the length of its stroke along cylinder 177. This movement increases the volume of cylinder 175, thereby increasing the volume of fluid passageway 93. For example, the volume of fluid passageway 93 may be increased by 10 cc as a result of piston 170 being retracted.
As draw down piston 170 is actuated, formation fluid may thus be drawn through central passageway 127 of snorkel 98 and through screen 100. The movement of draw down piston 170 within its cylinder 172 lowers the pressure in closed passageway 93 to a pressure below the formation pressure, such that formation fluid is drawn through screen 100 and snorkel 98 into aperture 101, then through stem passageway 108 to passageway 91 that is in fluid communication with passageway 93 and part of the same closed fluid system. In total, fluid chambers 93 (which include the volume of various interconnected fluid passageways, including passageways in probe assembly 50, passageways 85, 93 [
Referring momentarily to
Referring again to
With the drawdown piston 170 in its fully retracted position and formation fluid drawn into closed system 93, the pressure will stabilize and enable pressure transducers 160 a,c to sense and measure formation fluid pressure. The measured pressure is transmitted to the controller 190 in the electronic section where the information is stored in memory and, alternatively or additionally, is communicated to the master controller in the MWD tool 13 below formation tester 10 where it may be transmitted to the surface via mud pulse telemetry or by any other conventional telemetry means.
When drawdown is completed, piston 170 actuates a contact switch 320 mounted in endcap 400 and piston 170, as shown in
When the contact switch 320 is actuated controller 190 responds by shutting down motor 64 and pump 66 for energy conservation. Check valve 196 traps the hydraulic pressure and maintains piston 170 in its retracted position. In the event of any leakage of hydraulic fluid that might allow piston 170 to begin to move toward its original shouldered position, drawdown accumulator 186 will provide the necessary fluid volume to compensate for any such leakage and thereby maintain sufficient force to retain piston 170 in its retracted position.
During this interval, controller 190 continuously monitors the pressure in fluid passageway 93 via pressure transducers 160 a,c until the pressure stabilizes, or after a predetermined time interval.
When the measured pressure stabilizes, or after a predetermined time interval, controller 190 de-energizes solenoid valve 176. De-energizing solenoid valve 176 removes pressure from the close side of equalizer valve 60 and from the extend side of probe piston 96. Spring 58 then returns the equalizer valve 60 to its normally open state and probe retract accumulator 182 will cause piston 96 and snorkel 98 to retract, such that seal pad 140 becomes disengaged with the borehole wall. Thereafter, controller 190 again powers motor 64 to drive pump 66 and again energizes solenoid valve 180. This step ensures that piston 96 and snorkel 98 have fully retracted and that the equalizer valve 60 is opened. Given this arrangement, the formation tool 10 has a redundant probe retract mechanism. Active retract force is provided by the pump 66. A passive retract force is supplied by probe retract accumulator 182 that is capable of retracting the probe even in the event that power is lost. Accumulator 182 may be charged at the surface before being employed downhole to provide pressure to retain the piston and snorkel in housing 12 c.
Referring again briefly to
After a predetermined pressure, for example 1800 p.s.i., is sensed by pressure transducer 160 b and communicated to controller 190 (indicating that the equalizer valve is open and that the piston and snorkel are fully retracted), controller 190 de-energizes solenoid valve 178 to remove pressure from side 172 a of drawdown piston 170. With solenoid valve 180 remaining energized, positive pressure is applied to side 172 b of drawdown piston 170 to ensure that piston 170 is returned to its original position (as shown in
Relief valve 197 protects the hydraulic system 200 from overpressure and pressure transients. Various additional relief valves may be provided. Thermal relief valve 198 protects trapped pressure sections from overpressure. Check valve 199 prevents back flow through the pump 66.
The formation test tool 10 may operate in two general modes: pumps-on operation and pumps-off operation. During a pumps-on operation, mud pumps on the surface pump drilling fluid through the drill string 6 and back up the annulus 150 while testing. Using that column of drilling fluid, the tool 10 may transmit data to the surface using mud pulse telemetry during the formation test. The tool 10 may also receive mud pulse telemetry downlink commands from the surface. During a formation test, the drill pipe and formation test tool are not rotated. However, it may be the case that an immediate movement or rotation of the drill string will be necessary. As a failsafe feature, at any time during the formation test, an abort command may be transmitted from surface to the formation test tool 10. In response to this abort command, the formation test tool will immediately discontinue the formation test and retract the probe piston to its normal, retracted position for drilling. The drill pipe may then be moved or rotated without causing damage to the formation test tool.
During a pumps-off operation, a similar failsafe feature may also be active. The formation test tool 10 and/or MWD tool 13 may be adapted to sense when the mud flow pumps are turned on. Consequently, the act of turning on the pumps and reestablishing flow through the tool may be sensed by pressure transducer 160 d or by other pressure sensors in bottom hole assembly 6. This signal will be interpreted by a controller in the MWD tool 13 or other control and communicated to controller 190 that is programmed to automatically trigger an abort command in the formation test tool 10. At this point, the formation test tool 10 will immediately discontinue the formation test and retract the probe piston to its normal position for drilling. The drill pipe may then be moved or rotated without causing damage to the formation test tool.
The uplink and downlink commands are not limited to mud pulse telemetry. By way of example and not by way of limitation, other telemetry systems may include manual methods, including pump cycles, flow/pressure bands, pipe rotation, or combinations thereof. Other possibilities include electromagnetic (EM), acoustic, and wireline telemetry methods. An advantage to using alternative telemetry methods lies in the fact that mud pulse telemetry (both uplink and downlink) requires active pumping, but other telemetry systems do not. The failsafe abort command may therefore be sent from the surface to the formation test tool using an alternative telemetry system regardless of whether the mud flow pumps are on or off.
The down hole receiver for downlink commands or data from the surface may reside within the formation test tool or within an MWD tool 13 with which it communicates. Likewise, the down hole transmitter for uplink commands or data from down hole may reside within the formation test tool 10 or within an MWD tool 13 with which it communicates. The receivers and transmitters may each be positioned in MWD tool 13 and the receiver signals may be processed, analyzed, and sent to a master controller in the MWD tool 13 before being relayed to local controller 190 in formation testing tool 10.
Commands or data sent from surface to the formation test tool may be used for more than transmitting a failsafe abort command. The formation test tool may have many preprogrammed operating modes. A command from the surface may be used to select the desired operating mode. For example, one of a plurality of operating modes may be selected by transmitting a header sequence indicating a change in operating mode followed by a number of pulses that correspond to that operating mode. Other means of selecting an operating mode will certainly be known to those skilled in the art.
In addition to the operating modes discussed, other information may be transmitted from the surface to the formation test tool 10. This information may include critical operational data such as depth or surface drilling mud density. The formation test tool may use this information to help refine measurements or calculations made downhole or to select an operating mode. Commands from the surface might also be used to program the formation test tool to perform in a mode that is not preprogrammed.
Measuring Formation Properties
Referring again to
Referring now to
In an alternative embodiment to the typical formation test sequence, the test sequence is stopped after pad 140 is extended and equalizer valve 60 is closed, and the slight increase in pressure is recorded as shown at 202 in
To assist in determining mudcake thickness, in addition to the method described above, the position indicator on the probe assembly, described in the U.S. patent application entitled “Downhole Probe Assembly,” having U.S. Express Mail Label Number EV 303483549 US and Ser. No. 11/133,643, may be used to measure how far the probe assembly extends after engagement with the mud filtrate. This measurement gives an indication of how thick the mud filtrate is, and may be used to bolster the data gathered using pressure response, described above. Again, this measurement may be taken under a non-flow condition of the formation probe assembly, as previously described.
When taking pressure measurements, it is also possible to use the different pressure transducers to verify each gauge's reading compared to the others. Additionally, with multiple transducers, hydrostatic pressure in the borehole may be used to reverify gauges in the same location, by confirming that they are taking similar hydrostatic measurements. Because quartz gauges are more accurate, the quartz gauge response may be used to calibrate the strain gauge if the response is not highly transient.
With the assumption that the quartz gauge reading Pq is the more accurate of the two readings, the actual formation test pressures may be calculated by adding or subtracting the appropriate offset error Eoffs1 to the pressures indicated by the strain gauge Psg for the duration of the formation test. In this manner, the accuracy of the quartz transducer and the transient response of the strain gauge may both be used to generate a corrected formation test pressure that, where desired, is used for real-time calculation of formation characteristics or calibration of one or more of the gauges.
As the formation test proceeds, it is possible that the strain gauge readings may become more accurate or for the quartz gauge reading to approach actual pressures in the pressure chamber even though that pressure is changing. In either case, it is probable that the difference between the pressures indicated by the strain gauge transducer and the quartz transducer at a given point in time may change over the duration of the formation test. Hence, it may be desirable to consider a second offset error that is determined at the end of the test where steady state conditions have been resumed. Thus, as pressures Phyd2 level off at the end of the formation test, it may be desirable to calculate a second offset error Eoffs2. This second offset error Eoffs2 might then be used to provide an after-the-fact adjustment to the formation test pressures, or calibration of the strain gauge.
The offset values Eoffs1 and Eoffs2 may be used to adjust specific data points in the test. For example, all critical points up to Pfu might be adjusted using errors Eoffs1, whereas all remaining points might be adjusted offset using error Eoffs2. Another solution may be to calculate a weighted average between the two offset values and apply this single weighted average offset to all strain gauge pressure readings taken during the formation test. Other methods of applying the offset error values to accurately determine actual formation test pressures may be used accordingly and will be understood by those skilled in the art.
As previously generally described, quartz gauges are used for accuracy because they are steady and stable over time and retain their calibration over a wide variety of conditions. However, they are slow to respond to their environment. There are changes in pressure taking place during the measurement that the quartz gauge cannot detect. On the other hand, strain gauges are susceptible to change and to calibration effects. However, they are quick to respond to changes in their environment. Thus, both gauges may be used, with the quartz gauge used to get an accurate pressure reading while the strain gauge is used to look at the differences in pressure.
In another embodiment for calibrating the strain gauge using the quartzdyne gauge, a simple linear fit may be used. Referring to
The pressures measured by the quartz gauge, PQ1, and the corrected strain gauge, PSG1, will be the same in curve portion 502, where the pressure is stable and near hydrostatic, and before any dynamic responses are detected by either gauge. Once the formation pressure test has begun, a slight increase in pressure is illustrated at 501 before the drawdown is commenced, illustrated by curve portion 504. After drawdown is completed, the formation pressure is allowed to build back up until it stabilizes, illustrated at curve portion 506. Now, a second set of stabilized pressures may be taken, PQ2 and PSG2, and they will most likely be different because the dynamic response of the strain gauge is much less accurate than the dynamic response of the quartz gauge.
To recalibrate the strain gauge, two unknown values are identified and a simple linear fit is applied to the known and unknown values. The unknown values may be identified as Poff, representing the pressure offset between the two sets of stable pressure measurements, and Pslope, representing the slope of the curve between the two sets of stable pressure measurements. The known values are PQ1, PSG1, PQ2 and PSG2. The linear fit equations may be represented as:
P Q1 =P off+(P slope *P SG1), and
P Q2 =P off+(P slope *P SG2); which may be expressed as:
P slope=(P Q1 −P Q2)/(P SG1 −P SG2), and
P off =P Q1−(P Q1 −P Q2)/(P SG1 −P SG2)*P SG1; which may be expressed as:
P SGcorrected=Poff+(P slope*PSG).
With two equations and two unknowns, the equations may be solved as above to arrive at PSGcorrected, a corrected value obtained from the strain gauge. Alternatively, the strain gauge may be corrected based on the known values alone, substituting for Poff and Pslope to acquire the equation: PSGcorrected=PQ1−(PQ1−PQ2)/(PSG1−PSG2)*(PSG1−PSG 2).
Further, these gauge corrections may be done “on the fly,” or after each test as each sequential test is completed in the wellbore. The corrections may be done on the fly using real time streaming of the data to the surface using telemetry means, or, alternatively, using downhole processors and software placed in the tool.
Using the MWD tool's embedded software (and neural network techniques) and a downhole reference standard, such as the quartz gauge, every depth point in the borehole may be corrected to the reference. In a formation tester, there will typically be various types of pressure gauges for measuring pressure in the flow lines that carry formation fluids. For example, the formation fluid flow lines, such as lines 91, 93 may be in fluid communication with quartz gauges and strain gauges, such as transducers 160 a, 160 c of
Every location in the well has a discrete pressure and associated temperature as well stabilization occurs. Each time a pressure test is run, the pressure taken by the quartz gauge may be used as a continual calibration point for the strain gauges. If the data is continuously collected, a three-dimensional, contour-type plot of pressure vs. temperature may be created. The three dimensions that may be used are measured pressure, reference pressure, as described above, and temperature. Then, neural network techniques found in the tool's embedded software may be applied to the collected data such that the strain gauge transducers do not require recalibration.
Pressure transducers typically have a pressure data input range to which their accuracy is defined, such as zero to 10,000 p.s.i. or zero to 20,000 p.s.i. Accuracy is commonly measured as a percentage of full scale, thus the accuracy of a 10,000 p.s.i. gauge will be greater because the percentage number of that gauge will be less than the same percentage number of 20,000. To improve accuracy of the formation testing tool, several gauges may be used to cover the possible ranges of pressures to be tested, instead of using one gauge that covers the whole range. Therefore, to make the tool more accurate, multiple pressure gauges are used.
Alternatively, the range of a gauge may be calibrated for a smaller range to make the gauge more accurate. The manufacturer of the pressure gauge may set the electronics to detect a broad range of pressures. The electronics, which are very similar between gauges, may be adjusted to scale the transducer over a smaller range, thereby improving accuracy. Similarly, the same transducer may be used for different pressure ranges by using two or more calibration tables. The pressure data output effect of the transducer for the full pressure input range may be determined for one pressure transducer, and then two or more calibration tables may be established to interpret the output information given by the transducers for different pressure input ranges. Therefore, accuracy may be improved without the use of multiple transducers.
Accurate determination of formation pressure is vital to proper use of the measured formation pressures. However, changing densities of fluids in the formation testing tool's flow lines can be problematic. The measured pressure can be corrected for the density of the fluid in the vertical column of the flow line. The pressure transducers may be measuring accurate pressures of the formation fluids the transducers communicate with, but these transducers are removed from the location of the probe that gathers the formation fluids. For example, transducers 160 a, 160 c, 160 d are located below the probe assembly, as illustrated in
Preferably, the vertical offset between the reference point of the transducer and the fluid inlet point at the probe is a known distance. Additionally, if the formation testing tool is located in a deviated or inclined well, the orientation of the tool may be known from a navigational package. Thus, vertical known distance between the transducer and the probe inlet may be calculated for any inclination of the tool in the well. Lastly, if the fluid present in the flow line connecting the transducer and the probe inlet is known, then the pressure gradient of that fluid may be used to calculate the pressure at the probe inlet with respect to the pressure at the transducer.
For example, water has a pressure gradient of 0.433 p.s.i. per foot. If it was known that water was present in the flow line and that there was a foot difference between the pressure transducer and the probe inlet, a 0.433 p.s.i. correction may be made in the reading of the pressure transducer.
Thus, it is preferred that the pressure transducers be disposed as close to the probe assembly as possible.
In another embodiment of formation testing, while the formation probe assembly is engaged with the borehole, instead of pulling fluids into the probe assembly, or after pulling fluids into the probe assembly, fluids can be pushed out of the assembly into the formation. Thus, fluid communication may be established with the formation in the direction that is opposite to that of draw down, with such communication tending to pressure up the formation. This may be accomplished by adjustments to the sequence of events described previously. Now, the response to this pressure up can be recorded, and the pressure over time can observed for a portion of the formation. How the formation responds can be interpreted to obtain many of the formation properties previously described. Specifically, the pressure transient response to the change in formation pressure may be used to determine permeability of the mud cake, estimating the damage to the near wellbore formation and calculating mobility of the formation. For further detail on the process just described, reference may be made to the Society of Petroleum Engineers paper number 36524 entitled “Supercharge Pressure Compensation Using a New Wireline Method and Newly Developed Early Time Spherical Flow Model” and U.S. Pat. No. 5,644,075 entitled “Wireline Formation Tester Supercharge Correction Method,” each hereby incorporated herein by reference for all purposes.
Furthermore, the formation may be pressured up as just described, except to the point where the formation material breaks or fractures. This is called an injectivity test, and may be done with fluid from the same area (at the present measurement location), or fluid, such as water, which may be obtained from another area of the formation. The fluids obtained from another area may be stored in either a pressure vessel or in the drawdown piston assembly, and then injected into another area that contains a different fluid. Fluids may also be carried from the surface and selectively injected into the formation.
If injection rates are high enough to materially break or induce fracture in the formation, a change in pressure can be observed and interpreted, as has been previously described, to obtain formation properties, such as fracture pressure, which may be used to efficiently design future completion and stimulation programs. It should be noted that the injectivity may be performed to test the mud cake's ability to prevent fluid ingress to the formation. Alternatively, the test may be performed after a draw down and the mud cake is no longer present.
Formation testers may also be used to gather additional information aside from properties of the producible hydrocarbon fluids. For example, the formation tester tool instruments may be used to determine the resistivity of the water, which can be used in the calculation of the formation's water saturation. Knowing the water saturation helps in predicting the producibility of the formation. Sensor packages, such as induction packages or button electrode packages, may be added adjacent the probe assembly that are tailored to measuring the resistivity of the bound water in the formation. These sensors, preferably, would be disposed on the extending portions of the probe assembly, such as the snorkel 98 that may penetrate the mudcake and formation, as illustrated in
The advantage of the probe style formation test tool described herein is the flexibility to place the probe in a specific position upon the borehole to best obtain a formation pressure, or, alternatively, to not place the probe in an undesirable location. A tool such as an acoustic imaging device can provide a real time image of the borehole so the operator can determine where to take a pressure test. Additionally, the image from a porosity-type tool may provide information on porosity quality at an orientation within a portion of the well at constant depth, or at a direction along the wellbore (constant azimuth). It may also provide a real-time image of fractures intersecting the wellbore, providing the opportunity to avoid these fractures to obtain a good test for matrix pressures, or to test at these fractures to determine fracture properties. The image from these tools may be sensitive enough to determine that the probe from the pressure device actually tested at the pre-determined position and verify that the test was taken at the chosen position. These tools may also be used to examine the condition of the wellbore. This may be significant in high angle or horizontal wellbores where debris such as unremoved cuttings may still be in place and could interfere with obtaining an accurate formation pressure measurement.
It is common for the borehole to exhibit abnormalities due to erosion from the drill string or circulated drilling fluids. Abnormalities also exist due to fault lines and different types of formations abutting each other. Thus, often it is necessary to have a pre-existing image of the formation so that pressure measurements may be taken at pinpoint locations rather than at random locations in the formation. Acoustic, sonic, density, resistivity, gamma ray and other imaging techniques may be used to image the formation in real time. Then, the formation testing tool may be azimuthally oriented to locations of greatest or least porosity, permeability, density or other formation property, depending on what is to be gained from the pressure or other formation testing tool measurement. In cases where imaging tools indicate a sealing or “tight” zone, pressure measurements may be used to verify whether there is fluid communication or not. Alternatively, the imaging tools may be used to find zones that should not be pressure tested, such as highly dense or impermeable zones.
Afterwards, the previously mentioned imaging techniques may be used to verify where the pressure or other measurement was taken. The seal pad may leave an imprint on the borehole wall, thus an electrical imaging tool or acoustic scanning tool may be used to image after the test to verify the pad location on the borehole wall.
Pressure and other formation testing tool measurements may be taken with the mud pumps on or off. Pressure in the annulus is higher with pumps on than with pumps off, and the pressure drops in the direction of flow. With higher pressures from circulating, there is a higher rate of influx of drilling fluids and filtrate going into the formation, thus forming the mudcake more rapidly. The equivalent circulating density (ECD) is a measure of the drilling fluid density taking into account suspended drilling cuttings, fluid compressibility and the frictional pressure losses related to fluid flow. ECD will decrease with time if circulation continues but drilling stops because, as the drilling mud circulates, more of the drilling cuttings are filtered out while new cuttings are not being added. If pressure measurements are being taken by the formation tester, a difference may be noticed in the formation pressure because of the change in ECD from pumps-on to pumps-off.
For example, the formation probe assembly may be extended and a drawdown test performed wherein the pressure decreases as the fluids are drawn into the formation tester. Then, after the drawdown chamber is full, the pressure may build back up to equilibrate with the pressure in the undisturbed formation. Now, if the pumps are turned on, the ECD in the annulus increases, increasing the pressure sensed by the formation tester. If the pumps are turned off, the pressure will return to the original pressure before pumps were turned on. This pressure difference is due to the difference in the ECD and the hydrostatic pressure, and may be used to indicate how much drilling fluid is penetrating the formation, or how much communication there is between the drilling fluids and the formation. This difference may be equated to mobility or pressure transients, thereby obtaining more accurate measurements. These effects are associated with supercharge pressures and effects, which are more thoroughly described in various of the previously incorporated references.
With the pumps on, pressure pulses are sent downhole by the mud pumps, communication pulsers or other devices, and the pulses may be seen to exhibit sinusoidal behavior. During a pressure test, with the probe assembly extended, the probe may detect these pressure pulses through the formation because the inside of the probe assembly is relatively isolated from the wellbore fluids. The pressure pulses as detected in the wellbore may be compared with the pressure pulses as detected by the formation tester.
Referring now to
In an alternative embodiment to the embodiment just described, the formation testing tool includes more than one formation probe assembly. Instead of creating pressure pulses at the surface of the wellbore, the pulses may be created by one probe assembly while the other probe assembly takes measurements. While at least two formation probe assemblies are extended and engaged with the borehole wall, one probe assembly may pulse fluid into the assembly and back out into the formation by reciprocating the draw down pistons. Meanwhile, the other probe assembly takes measurements as described above.
Formation tests may be taken with the formation tester tool very soon after the drill bit has penetrated the formation. For example, the formation tests may be taken immediately after the formation has been drilled through, such as within ten minutes of penetration. Taking tests at this time means there is less mud invasion and less mudcake to contend with, resulting in better pressure and/or permeability tests, better formation fluid samples (less contamination) and less rig time required to obtain these data. Taking tests immediately after drilling will also allow the drilling operator look for casing points immediately. These tests may also indicate whether the zone is depleted, or whether hole collapse is imminent. Corrective actions may then be taken, such sa casing the hole, changing mud properties, continuing drilling, or others.
Additionally, the formation may be tested on the way into a drilled hole and on the way out to observe changes in the mudcake and formation over time. The two sets of measurements may be compared to identify changes that are occurring to the borehole and surrounding formation. The differences over time may indicate supercharging effects, more fully developed in the various references previously mentioned, and may be used to correct a model of the formation to account for the supercharge pressure.
Predicting pore pressure is typically accomplished by measuring the magnitude of formation compaction. Formation compaction typically occurs in shales, thus shale formations must be drilled and logged to obtain the necessary data to create pore prediction models. The formation testing tool described herein may measure pore pressure directly. This measurement is more accurate and may be used to calibrate pore pressure predictor models.
Using Formation Property Data
After measuring formation pressure, permeability and other formation properties, this information may be sent to the surface using mud pulse telemetry, or any of various other conventional means for transmitting signals from downhole tools. At the surface, the drilling operator may use this information to optimize bit cutting properties, or drilling or downhole operation parameters.
Knowing mudcake properties allows adjustments to certain drilling parameters if the mudcake differs from a known, predetermined, or desirable value; adjustments to the mud system itself may also be made, to enhance the mud properties and reduce mud cake thickness or filtrate invasion rate. For example, if the mudcake is found to be contaminated or impermeable, the drilling mud properties can be adjusted to reduce the pressure on the mudcake or reduce the amount of contaminants ingressing into the mudcake, or chemicals may be added to the mud system to correct mud cake thickness.
Furthermore, pressure measurements taken downhole may indicate the need to make downhole pressure adjustments if, again, the downhole measurements differ from a desirable known or predetermined value. However, instead of adjusting mud properties, other mechanical means may be use to control the downhole pressure. For example, with a choke control or a rotating blowout preventer (BOP), the choke or rotating BOP restriction may be manipulated to mechanically increase or decrease the resistance to flow at the surface, thereby adjusting the downhole pressure.
An exemplary drilling parameter that may be adjusted is the rate of drill bit penetration. Using the formation tester in the ways described above, certain rock properties, also described above, can be measured. These properties may be directed to the surface in real time so as to optimize the rate of penetration while drilling. With a certain shape of the probe and knowing the shape of the frontal contact area of the borehole wall, certain formation properties may be measured. If a formation probe assembly such as that illustrated in FIGS. 5 and 6A-C, or in the U.S. patent application entitled “Downhole Probe Assembly,” previously mentioned and incorporated by reference, is used to engage the formation, force vs. displacement of the probe assembly may then be determined using an extensiometer or potentiometer. The force vs. displacement information may be used to calculate compressive strength, compressive modulus and other properties of the formation materials themselves. These formation material properties are useful in determining and optimizing the rate of drill bit penetration.
Measurements taken by the formation testing tool may be used for optimizing additional drilling applications. For example, formation pressure may be used to determine casing requirements. The formation pressures taken downhole may be used to determine the optimal size and strength of the casing required. If the formation is found to have a high formation pressure, then the hole may be cased with a relatively strong casing material to ensure that the integrity of the borehole is maintained in the high pressure formation. If the formation is found to have a low pressure, the casing size may be reduced and different materials may be used to save costs. Rock strength measurements taken with the tool may also assist with casing requirements. Solid rock formations require less casing material because they are stable, while formations composed of sediments require thicker casing.
In inclined or horizontal wells, and particularly when the drilling fluid has stopped circulating, heavier density particles in the drilling fluid settle toward the lower side of the borehole. This condition is undesirable because the effective density of the fluid is lowered. When the surrounding formation is at a higher pressure than the drilling fluid, hole blowout becomes more likely. To detect this condition, the formation testing tool may be oriented to the low side of the borehole, where measurements may now be taken. In one embodiment, the probe assembly may be extended and pressures taken. Preferably, the pressure transducers that are in communication with the annulus, such as transducer 160 c or the PWD sensor in the MWD tool, can be used to take the pressure of the annulus fluid without extending the probe. If the fluid on the low side of the borehole is found to have a higher density or weight than the equivalent drilling fluid density or weight, then the drilling fluid properties may be adjusted to correct this condition. Alternatively, or in addition, the measurements may be taken at other locations in the borehole, such as at the upper side.
Anisotropic formations exhibit properties, any property, with different values when measured in different directions. For example, resistivity may be different in the horizontal direction than in the vertical direction, which may be due to the presence of multiple formation beds or layering within certain types of rocks.
For example, formation anisotropy may be determined by taking formation measurements, such as pressure and temperature, re-orienting the tool rotationally and taking additional measurements at additional angles around the borehole. Alternatively, if multiple probe assemblies or other measuring devices are disposed about the tool, these measurements taken about the tool may be taken simultaneously. In addition to taking direct formation measurements, the tool may take other measurements, such as sonic and electromagnetic measurements. After all such measurements have been taken, the formation anisotropy for each type of measurement may be calculated. A formation anisotropy value may be tied to or compared with acoustic, resistivity and other measurements taken by other tools. This would allow, for example, resistivity to be correlated with permeability changes using known formation models (more fully described below).
Typically, formation pressure measurements are estimated and/or predicted by interpreting certain formation measurements other than the direct measurement of formation pressure. For example, pressure while drilling (PWD) and logging while drilling (LWD) measurements are gathered and analyzed to predict what the actual formation pressure is. Analysis of data such as rock properties and stress orientation, and of models such as fracture-gradient models and trend-based models, can be used to predict actual formation pressure. Furthermore, direct formation measurements may be used too supplement, correct or adjust these data and models to more accurately predict formation pressures. The advantage with the formation testing tools described and referenced herein is that the pressure and other formation data may be sent uphole real time, thereby allowing the models to be updated real time.
Additionally, each measured formation property, including those previously listed and defined, may themselves be used to map or image the formation. Ultimately, a formation model is developed so it is known what the formation looks like on a computer screen at the surface of the borehole. An example of such a formation model is the Landmark earth model. Each additional measured property of the formation may be used to make complementary images, with each new property and image adding to the accuracy of the formation model or image. Thus, the properties gathered by the formation tester tools referenced herein, particularly pressure data, may be used to create better models or enhance existing ones, to better understand the formations that are being penetrated. As described before, these models and data may be updated “on the fly” to calibrate various models for better formation pressure predictions.
Similarly, formation test data, such as pressure, temperature and other previously described data, gathered using a formation testing tool 10 may be used to improve or correct other measurements, and vice-versa. Other measurements that may benefit from real time pressure data and pressure gradient information include: pressure while drilling (PWD), sonic or acoustic tool measurements, nuclear magnetic resonance imaging, resistivity, density, porosity, etc. These measurements or interpretive tools, such as pore-pressure prediction tools or models, may be updated based on physical measurements, and are at least somewhat dependent on pressure or other formation properties. Drilling mud properties may also be adjusted in a similar fashion, based on the formation measurements taken real time. Further, the formation data may be used to assist other services, including drilling fluid services and completion services, and operation of other tools.
While drilling, LWD tools may be measuring the resistivity of the formation fluids and creating resistivity logs. From the resistivity log and other data, water saturation of the formation may be calculated. Changes in water saturation with depth may be observed and may be consolidated into a gradient. The water saturation level is related to how far above the 100% free water level the test depth is. The water saturation levels and gradient may be used to create a capillary pressure curve. The pressure data from the formation testing tool may be matched up with the capillary pressure curve, which may then be projected downhole to estimate the free water level. The free water level may be used to determine the amount of hydrocarbons, especially gas, that are available for production. At the 100% free water level, production is not viable. Thus, the free water level may be determined without having to test down to the actual free water level.
Pressure measurements may also be used to steer the bottom hole assembly (BHA). If formation pressure measurements indicate that the current zone is not producible or otherwise unattractive for drilling, then the BHA, including the drill bit, may be steered in another direction. An example of a steerable BHA assembly is Halliburton's GeoPilot system. Such directional drilling is intended to steer the BHA into the highest pressure portions of the reservoir, maintain the BHA in the same pressure zone, or avoid a decreased pressure zone. Again, petrophysical data, such as those formation properties previously mentioned, may also be used to more accurately steer the BHA.
The bubble point, as previously defined, can be a beneficial real time measurement. Measuring changes in the bubble point of formation fluids with depth of the formation tester tool in the wellbore allows a bubble point gradient to be determined. Plotting the bubble point gradient generally allows transitions back and forth between gas, water and oil and to be observed, or identification of a zone that is not connected to another zone based on downhole pressure measurements. The bubble point gradient may be used to steer the BHA. Steering downward toward denser fluids is desirable, as the lighter fluids, i.e., the ones having higher bubble points due to retaining more dissolved gases, tend to move upward. Therefore, as fluids with lower bubble points are encountered, the BHA is steered toward these fluids.
The bubble point gradient, as well as other gradients, may be computed on the fly as bubble points and pressure measurements are taken at different depths during the same trip into the borehole. The data is sent to the surface real time for the gradients to be calculated and used.
As described above, pressure while drilling, taken in the annulus, and actual formation pressure are two distinct measurements. With the ability to obtain actual formation pressure, these two measurements may be combined and interpreted for flags, or warnings, and the flags may then be sent to the surface. Prior to the advent of FTWD, these measurements had to combined and interpreted at the surface because actual formation pressure could only be obtained after drilling had stopped. Therefore, the warning could only be determined after the fact. The types of flags that may be sent to the surface include the annulus pressure being below the formation pressure and the annulus pressure being above the fracture gradient.
The above discussion is meant to be illustrative of the principles and various embodiments of the present invention. While the preferred embodiment of the invention and its method of use have been shown and described, modifications thereof can be made by one skilled in the art without departing from the spirit and teachings of the invention. The embodiments described herein are exemplary only, and are not limiting. Many variations and modifications of the invention and apparatus and methods disclosed herein are possible and are within the scope of the invention. Accordingly, the scope of protection is not limited by the description set out above, but is only limited by the claims which follow, that scope including all equivalents of the subject matter of the claims.
|Cited Patent||Filing date||Publication date||Applicant||Title|
|US3173485||Aug 26, 1958||Mar 16, 1965||Halliburton Co||Well formation isolation apparatus|
|US3338307||Feb 2, 1965||Aug 29, 1967||Redwine Fletcher H||Formation fluid sampler|
|US3356137||Jul 30, 1965||Dec 5, 1967||Borg Warner||Method and apparatus for obtaining a fluid sample from an earth formation|
|US3530933||Apr 2, 1969||Sep 29, 1970||Schlumberger Technology Corp||Formation-sampling apparatus|
|US3565169||Apr 2, 1969||Feb 23, 1971||Schlumberger Technology Corp||Formation-sampling apparatus|
|US3811321||Dec 8, 1972||May 21, 1974||Schlumberger Technology Corp||Methods and apparatus for testing earth formations|
|US3813936||Dec 8, 1972||Jun 4, 1974||Schlumberger Technology Corp||Methods and apparatus for testing earth formations|
|US3858445||Mar 20, 1973||Jan 7, 1975||Urbanosky Harold J||Methods and apparatus for testing earth formations|
|US3859850||Mar 20, 1973||Jan 14, 1975||Schlumberger Technology Corp||Methods and apparatus for testing earth formations|
|US3859851||Dec 12, 1973||Jan 14, 1975||Schlumberger Technology Corp||Methods and apparatus for testing earth formations|
|US3864970||Oct 18, 1973||Feb 11, 1975||Schlumberger Technology Corp||Methods and apparatus for testing earth formations composed of particles of various sizes|
|US3924463||Oct 18, 1973||Dec 9, 1975||Schlumberger Technology Corp||Apparatus for testing earth formations composed of particles of various sizes|
|US3952588||Jan 22, 1975||Apr 27, 1976||Schlumberger Technology Corporation||Apparatus for testing earth formations|
|US4210018||May 22, 1978||Jul 1, 1980||Gearhart-Owen Industries, Inc.||Formation testers|
|US4246782||May 5, 1980||Jan 27, 1981||Gearhart-Owen Industries, Inc.||Tool for testing earth formations in boreholes|
|US4248081||May 5, 1980||Feb 3, 1981||Gearhart-Owen Industries, Inc.||Tool for testing earth formations in boreholes|
|US4270385||May 25, 1979||Jun 2, 1981||Gearhart Owen Industries, Inc.||Tool for testing earth formations in boreholes|
|US4282750||Apr 4, 1980||Aug 11, 1981||Shell Oil Company||Process for measuring the formation water pressure within an oil layer in a dipping reservoir|
|US4287946||Aug 9, 1979||Sep 8, 1981||Brieger Emmet F||Formation testers|
|US4292842||May 5, 1980||Oct 6, 1981||Gearhart Industries, Inc.||Tool for testing earth formations in boreholes|
|US4339948||Apr 25, 1980||Jul 20, 1982||Gearhart Industries, Inc.||Well formation test-treat-test apparatus and method|
|US4375164||Apr 22, 1981||Mar 1, 1983||Halliburton Company||Formation tester|
|US4416152||Oct 9, 1981||Nov 22, 1983||Dresser Industries, Inc.||Formation fluid testing and sampling apparatus|
|US4434653||Jul 15, 1982||Mar 6, 1984||Dresser Industries, Inc.||Apparatus for testing earth formations|
|US4507957||May 16, 1983||Apr 2, 1985||Dresser Industries, Inc.||Apparatus for testing earth formations|
|US4513612||Jun 27, 1983||Apr 30, 1985||Halliburton Company||Multiple flow rate formation testing device and method|
|US4593560||Apr 22, 1985||Jun 10, 1986||Halliburton Company||Push-off pistons|
|US4671322||Aug 19, 1985||Jun 9, 1987||Halliburton Company||Sequential formation tester having three way normally closed valve|
|US4712613||Jun 10, 1986||Dec 15, 1987||Peder Smedvig Aksjeselskap||Down-hole blow-out preventers|
|US4720996||Jan 10, 1986||Jan 26, 1988||Western Atlas International, Inc.||Power control system for subsurface formation testing apparatus|
|US4742459||Sep 29, 1986||May 3, 1988||Schlumber Technology Corp.||Method and apparatus for determining hydraulic properties of formations surrounding a borehole|
|US4745802||Sep 18, 1986||May 24, 1988||Halliburton Company||Formation testing tool and method of obtaining post-test drawdown and pressure readings|
|US4782695||Sep 22, 1986||Nov 8, 1988||Schlumberger Technology Corporation||Method and apparatus for measuring the bubble point of oil in an underground formation|
|US4833914||Apr 29, 1988||May 30, 1989||Anadrill, Inc.||Pore pressure formation evaluation while drilling|
|US4843878||Sep 22, 1988||Jul 4, 1989||Halliburton Logging Services, Inc.||Method and apparatus for instantaneously indicating permeability and horner plot slope relating to formation testing|
|US4845982||Aug 20, 1987||Jul 11, 1989||Halliburton Logging Services Inc.||Hydraulic circuit for use in wireline formation tester|
|US4860580||Nov 7, 1988||Aug 29, 1989||Durocher David||Formation testing apparatus and method|
|US4860581||Sep 23, 1988||Aug 29, 1989||Schlumberger Technology Corporation||Down hole tool for determination of formation properties|
|US4862967||Jul 18, 1988||Sep 5, 1989||Baker Oil Tools, Inc.||Method of employing a coated elastomeric packing element|
|US4879900||Jul 5, 1988||Nov 14, 1989||Halliburton Logging Services, Inc.||Hydraulic system in formation test tools having a hydraulic pad pressure priority system and high speed extension of the setting pistons|
|US4884439||Jan 26, 1989||Dec 5, 1989||Halliburton Logging Services, Inc.||Hydraulic circuit use in wireline formation tester|
|US4890487||Apr 7, 1987||Jan 2, 1990||Schlumberger Technology Corporation||Method for determining horizontal and/or vertical permeability of a subsurface earth formation|
|US4893505||Mar 30, 1988||Jan 16, 1990||Western Atlas International, Inc.||Subsurface formation testing apparatus|
|US4936139||Jul 10, 1989||Jun 26, 1990||Schlumberger Technology Corporation||Down hole method for determination of formation properties|
|US4941350||Apr 10, 1989||Jul 17, 1990||Schneider George F||Method and apparatus for formation testing|
|US4949575||Feb 27, 1989||Aug 21, 1990||Anadrill, Inc.||Formation volumetric evaluation while drilling|
|US4951749||May 23, 1989||Aug 28, 1990||Schlumberger Technology Corporation||Earth formation sampling and testing method and apparatus with improved filter means|
|US4962665||Sep 25, 1989||Oct 16, 1990||Texaco Inc.||Sampling resistivity of formation fluids in a well bore|
|US4994671||Oct 4, 1989||Feb 19, 1991||Schlumberger Technology Corporation||Apparatus and method for analyzing the composition of formation fluids|
|US5056595||Aug 13, 1990||Oct 15, 1991||Gas Research Institute||Wireline formation test tool with jet perforator for positively establishing fluidic communication with subsurface formation to be tested|
|US5095745||Jun 15, 1990||Mar 17, 1992||Louisiana State University||Method and apparatus for testing subsurface formations|
|US5148705||Jun 25, 1990||Sep 22, 1992||Louisiana State University And Agricultural And Mechanical College||Method and apparatus for determining the wettability of an earth formation|
|US5166747||Jun 1, 1990||Nov 24, 1992||Schlumberger Technology Corporation||Apparatus and method for analyzing the composition of formation fluids|
|US5167149||Aug 28, 1990||Dec 1, 1992||Schlumberger Technology Corporation||Apparatus and method for detecting the presence of gas in a borehole flow stream|
|US5184508||Apr 15, 1991||Feb 9, 1993||Louisiana State University And Agricultural And Mechanical College||Method for determining formation pressure|
|US5201220||Sep 8, 1992||Apr 13, 1993||Schlumberger Technology Corp.||Apparatus and method for detecting the presence of gas in a borehole flow stream|
|US5207104||Aug 6, 1991||May 4, 1993||Halliburton Logging Services, Inc.||Method for determination of the in situ compressive strength of formations penetrated by a well borehole|
|US5230244||Jun 28, 1990||Jul 27, 1993||Halliburton Logging Services, Inc.||Formation flush pump system for use in a wireline formation test tool|
|US5233866||Apr 22, 1991||Aug 10, 1993||Gulf Research Institute||Apparatus and method for accurately measuring formation pressures|
|US5247830||Sep 17, 1991||Sep 28, 1993||Schlumberger Technology Corporation||Method for determining hydraulic properties of formations surrounding a borehole|
|US5265015||Jun 27, 1991||Nov 23, 1993||Schlumberger Technology Corporation||Determining horizontal and/or vertical permeability of an earth formation|
|US5269180||Sep 17, 1991||Dec 14, 1993||Schlumberger Technology Corp.||Borehole tool, procedures, and interpretation for making permeability measurements of subsurface formations|
|US5279153||Aug 30, 1991||Jan 18, 1994||Schlumberger Technology Corporation||Apparatus for determining horizontal and/or vertical permeability of an earth formation|
|US5303582||Oct 30, 1992||Apr 19, 1994||New Mexico Tech Research Foundation||Pressure-transient testing while drilling|
|US5303775||Nov 16, 1992||Apr 19, 1994||Western Atlas International, Inc.||Method and apparatus for acquiring and processing subsurface samples of connate fluid|
|US5329811||Feb 4, 1993||Jul 19, 1994||Halliburton Company||Downhole fluid property measurement tool|
|US5335542||Feb 12, 1993||Aug 9, 1994||Schlumberger Technology Corporation||Integrated permeability measurement and resistivity imaging tool|
|US5353637||Jun 9, 1992||Oct 11, 1994||Plumb Richard A||Methods and apparatus for borehole measurement of formation stress|
|US5377755||Apr 18, 1994||Jan 3, 1995||Western Atlas International, Inc.||Method and apparatus for acquiring and processing subsurface samples of connate fluid|
|US5473939||Apr 16, 1993||Dec 12, 1995||Western Atlas International, Inc.||Method and apparatus for pressure, volume, and temperature measurement and characterization of subsurface formations|
|US5517854||Apr 29, 1994||May 21, 1996||Schlumberger Technology Corporation||Methods and apparatus for borehole measurement of formation stress|
|US5549159||Jun 22, 1995||Aug 27, 1996||Western Atlas International, Inc.||Formation testing method and apparatus using multiple radially-segmented fluid probes|
|US5549162||Jul 5, 1995||Aug 27, 1996||Western Atlas International, Inc.||Electric wireline formation testing tool having temperature stabilized sample tank|
|US5587525||Apr 27, 1995||Dec 24, 1996||Western Atlas International, Inc.||Formation fluid flow rate determination method and apparatus for electric wireline formation testing tools|
|US5602334||Jun 17, 1994||Feb 11, 1997||Halliburton Company||Wireline formation testing for low permeability formations utilizing pressure transients|
|US5622223||Sep 1, 1995||Apr 22, 1997||Haliburton Company||Apparatus and method for retrieving formation fluid samples utilizing differential pressure measurements|
|US5635631||Jun 15, 1995||Jun 3, 1997||Western Atlas International, Inc.||Determining fluid properties from pressure, volume and temperature measurements made by electric wireline formation testing tools|
|US5644076||Mar 14, 1996||Jul 1, 1997||Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.||Wireline formation tester supercharge correction method|
|US5663559||Jun 7, 1995||Sep 2, 1997||Schlumberger Technology Corporation||Microscopy imaging of earth formations|
|US5672819||Mar 13, 1996||Sep 30, 1997||Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.||Formation evaluation using phase shift periodic pressure pulse testing|
|US5703286||Oct 20, 1995||Dec 30, 1997||Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.||Method of formation testing|
|US5708204||Sep 26, 1996||Jan 13, 1998||Western Atlas International, Inc.||Fluid flow rate analysis method for wireline formation testing tools|
|US5741962||Apr 5, 1996||Apr 21, 1998||Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.||Apparatus and method for analyzing a retrieving formation fluid utilizing acoustic measurements|
|US5770798||Feb 9, 1996||Jun 23, 1998||Western Atlas International, Inc.||Variable diameter probe for detecting formation damage|
|US5789669||Aug 13, 1997||Aug 4, 1998||Flaum; Charles||Method and apparatus for determining formation pressure|
|US5803186||Mar 28, 1996||Sep 8, 1998||Baker Hughes Incorporated||Formation isolation and testing apparatus and method|
|US5924499 *||Apr 21, 1997||Jul 20, 1999||Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.||Acoustic data link and formation property sensor for downhole MWD system|
|US5934374||Aug 1, 1996||Aug 10, 1999||Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.||Formation tester with improved sample collection system|
|US5969241||Apr 10, 1996||Oct 19, 1999||Schlumberger Technology Corporation||Method and apparatus for measuring formation pressure|
|US6026915||Oct 14, 1997||Feb 22, 2000||Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.||Early evaluation system with drilling capability|
|US6044325 *||Jul 21, 1998||Mar 28, 2000||Western Atlas International, Inc.||Conductivity anisotropy estimation method for inversion processing of measurements made by a transverse electromagnetic induction logging instrument|
|US6047239||Jun 1, 1998||Apr 4, 2000||Baker Hughes Incorporated||Formation testing apparatus and method|
|US6058773||May 15, 1998||May 9, 2000||Schlumberger Technology Corporation||Apparatus and method for sampling formation fluids above the bubble point in a low permeability, high pressure formation|
|US6092416||Apr 16, 1997||Jul 25, 2000||Schlumberger Technology Corporation||Downholed system and method for determining formation properties|
|US6109370 *||Jun 25, 1997||Aug 29, 2000||Ian Gray||System for directional control of drilling|
|US6111409||Mar 2, 1998||Aug 29, 2000||Western Atlas International, Inc.||Nuclear magnetic reasonance fluid characterization apparatus and method for using with electric wireline formation testing instruments|
|US6128949||Jun 15, 1998||Oct 10, 2000||Schlumberger Technology Corporation||Phase change analysis in logging method|
|US6157893 *||Apr 30, 1999||Dec 5, 2000||Baker Hughes Incorporated||Modified formation testing apparatus and method|
|US6164126||Oct 15, 1998||Dec 26, 2000||Schlumberger Technology Corporation||Earth formation pressure measurement with penetrating probe|
|US6178815||Jul 30, 1998||Jan 30, 2001||Schlumberger Technology Corporation||Method to improve the quality of a formation fluid sample|
|US6223822||Nov 23, 1999||May 1, 2001||Schlumberger Technology Corporation||Downhole sampling tool and method|
|US6230557 *||Jul 12, 1999||May 15, 2001||Schlumberger Technology Corporation||Formation pressure measurement while drilling utilizing a non-rotating sleeve|
|US6247542||Feb 9, 1999||Jun 19, 2001||Baker Hughes Incorporated||Non-rotating sensor assembly for measurement-while-drilling applications|
|US6274865||Feb 23, 1999||Aug 14, 2001||Schlumberger Technology Corporation||Analysis of downhole OBM-contaminated formation fluid|
|US6859033 *||Aug 28, 2002||Feb 22, 2005||Schlumberger Technology Corporation||Method for magnetic resonance fluid characterization|
|1||"Well Testing Using Wireline Methods"; Schlumberger East Asia Well Evaluation Conference; 1981; pp. 121-144; Singapore.|
|2||A. F. Shakirov et al.; "On The Regimes of Formation Testing In Wells"; Neft Khoz; Dec. 1973; pp. 14-17; No. 12; Russia.|
|3||A.A. Grinko et al.; "Analysis of the Quality of Drilling-In of Producing Formation on the Basis of the Tests During Drilling"; Stroit. Neft. Gaz. Skvazhin Sushe More; Apr.-May 1999; pp. 45-47; Nos. 4-5; ISSN 0130-3872; Russia.|
|4||A.H. Akram et al.; "A Model to Predict Wireline Formation Tester Sample Contamination"; 1998 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition; Sep. 27-30, 1998; pp. 27-33; SPE 48959; Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.; New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.|
|5||Alastair Crombie et al.; "Innovations in Wireline Fluid Sampling"; pp. 26-41; Oilfield Review, Autumn 1998.|
|6||Amit K. Sakar et al.; "Adverse Effects of Poor Mud Cake Quality: Supercharging and Fluid Sampling Study"; SPE Reservoir Eval. & Eng. 3 (3), Jun. 2000; pp. 256-262; Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.; U.S.A.|
|7||C. Frimann-Dahl et al.; "Formation Testers vs DST-The Cost Effective Use of Transient Analysis to Get Reservoir Parameters"; 1998 SPE Annual Technical Conference; Sep. 27-30, 1998; pp. 1-14; SPE 48962; Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.; New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.|
|8||Cosan Ayan et al.; "Characterizing Permeability with Formation Testers"; Oilfield Review, Autumn 2001; pp. 2-23.|
|9||D.K. Sethi et al.; "The Formation Multi-Tester: Its Basic Principles and Practical Field Applications"; SPWLA Twenty-First Annual Logging Symposium; Jul. 8-11, 1980; pp. 1-34.|
|10||E. B. Dussan V. et al.; "An Analysis of the Pressure Response of a Single-Probe Formation Tester"; 62nd Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition; Sep. 27-30, 1987: pp. 519-527; SPE 16801; Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.; Dallas, Texas, U.S.A.|
|11||E. C. Thomas; "Wireline Formation Tester Data: Fact or Fiction"; Petrophysics, vol. 41, No. 5, Sep.-Oct. 2000; pp. 375-378.|
|12||E. Kasap et al.; "Robust and Simple Graphical Solution For Wireline Formation Tests: Combined Drawdown and Buildup Analyses"; 1996 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition; Oct. 6-9, 1996; pp. 343-357; SPE 36525; Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.; Denver, Colorado, U.S.A.|
|13||E. Kasap; "A New, Simplified, Unified Technique For The Analysis of Wireline Formation Test Data"; SPWLA 37th Annual Logging Symposium; Jun. 16-19, 1996; pp. 1-13.|
|14||Ekrem Kasa; "Analysis of Wireline Formation Test Data From Gas and Non-Darcy Flow Conditions"; 1998 SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference; Mar. 25-27, 1998; pp. 183-189; SPE 39769; Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.; Midland, Texas, U.S.A.|
|15||G. D. Sukhonosov; "Evaluation of Permeability Change Around The Well-Bore Area From Data Obtained With Formation Testers"; Neft Khoz; Oct. 1970; pp. 22-26; No. 10; Russia.|
|16||G.D. Phelps et al.; "The Analysis of the Invaded Zone Characteristics and Their Infuence on Wireline Log and Well-Test Interpretation"; 1984 Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME 59th Annual Conference and Exhibition; Sep. 16-19, 1984; pp. 1-10; Tables 1-4; Figures 1-14; SPE 13287; Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME; Houston, Texas, U.S.A.|
|17||H. Badaam et al.; "Estimation of Formation Properties Using Multiprobe Formation Tester in Layered Reservoirs"; 1998 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition; Sep. 27-30, 1998; pp. 479-490; SPE 49141; Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.; New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.|
|18||H. Elshahawi et al.; "Correcting for Wettability and Capillary Pressure Effects on Formation Tester Measurements"; 2000 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition; Oct. 1-4, 2000; pp. 1-5; SPE 63075; Society of Petrolem Engineers, Inc.; Dallas, Texas, U.S.A.|
|19||H. Elshahawi et al.; "Correcting for Wettability and Capillary Pressure Effects on Formation Tester Measurements"; SPWLA 41<SUP>st </SUP>Annual Logging Symposium; Jun. 4-7, 2000, pp. 1-14; Society of Petroleum Well Log Analysts; Dallas, Texas, U.S.A.|
|20||I. Gaz et al.; "Exploring New Methodologies To Acquire DST Type Data"; 1997 Offshore Mediterranean Conference and Exhibition; Mar. 19-21, 1997; pp. 587-592; Ravenna, Italy.|
|21||J. Michaels et al.; "Wireline Fluid Sampling"; 1995 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition; Oct. 22-25, 2005; pp. 871-878; SPE 36010; Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.; Dallas, Texas, U.S.A.|
|22||Jaedong Lee et al.; "Enhanced Wireline Formation Test in Low-Permeability Formations: Quality Control Through Formation Rate Analysis"; 2000 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium and Exhibition; Mar. 12-15, 2000; pp. 1-4 with Figures 1A-15; SPE 60392; Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.; Denver, Colorado, U.S.A.|
|23||Jaedong Lee et al.; "Pressure Test Analysis of Gas Bearing Formations"; 1998 SPWLA 39th Annual Logging Symposium ; May 26-29, 1998; pp. 1-9.|
|24||Joel L. Hebert; "A Method for Planning and Performing a Pressure Survey to Achieve Desired Accuracy of Pressure Gradient"; 2002 ASME Engineering Technology Conference on Energy; Feb. 4-5, 2002; pp. 1-8; ETCE 2002; American Society of Mechanical Engineers; Houston, Texas, U.S.A.|
|25||John Michaels et al.; "Advances in Wireline Formation Testing"; SPWLA 36th Annual Logging Symposium; Jun. 26-29, 1995; pp. 1-11.|
|26||K. Zainun et al.; "Optimized Exploration Resource Evaluation Using the MDT Tool"; 1995 SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference; Mar. 20-22, 1995; pp. 177-194; SPE 29270; Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.; Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.|
|27||Kun Huang; "A Study of Dimensionless Parameters and Formation Rate Analysis Technique for Interpretation of WFT Data"; 1996; pp. 1-147; University of Tulsa; Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A.|
|28||Long Haitao; "Follow-Up Monitoring and Evaluation of the Formation Pressure in the Process of Drilling"; Natur. Gas Ind., vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 33-36; Jul. 25, 2000. (Partial translation attached).|
|29||M. D. Enikeev; "Effect of Shaft Curvature on The Results of Formation Testing During the Drilling of Sloping Wells"; May, 1978; pp. 26-29; pub. No. 004224; All-Union Sci. Res. Inst of Pet & Geophys. Ind.; USSR. (Patial translation attached).|
|30||M. Hooper et al.; "Applications for an LWD Formation Tester"; 1999 SPE European Formation Damage Conference; May 28- Jun. 1, 1999; pp. 1-8; SPE 52794; Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.; The Hague, The Netherlands.|
|31||M. Meister et al.; "Formation Pressure Testing During Drilling: Challenges and Benefits"; SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition; Oct. 5-8, 2003: pp. 1-8; SPE 84088; Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.; Denver, CO, U.S.A.|
|32||M.M. Kamal et al.; "Use of Transient Testing in Reservoir Management"; University of Tulsa Centennial Petroleum Engineering Symposium; Aug. 29-31, 1994; pp. 519-531; SPE 28008; Society of Petroleum Engineers; Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A.|
|33||Mark A. Proett et al.; "Advanced Permeability and Anistropy Measurements While Testing and Sampling in Real-Time Using A Dual Probe Formation Tester"; 2000 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition; Oct. 1-4, 2000; pp. 1-15; SPE 62919; Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.; Dallas, Texas, U.S.A.|
|34||Mark A. Proett et al.; "Low Permeability Interpretation Using a New Wireline Formation Tester 'Tight Zone' Pressure Transient Analysis"; 1994 SPWLA 35th Annual Logging Symposium; Jun. 19-22, 1994; pp. 1-25.|
|35||Mark A. Proett et al.; "Multiple Factors That Influence Wireline Formation Tester Pressure Measurements and Fluid Contact Estimates"; 2001 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition; Sep. 30-Oct. 3, 2001; pp. 1-16; SPE 71566; Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.; New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.|
|36||Mark A. Proett et al.; "New Dual-Probe Wireline Formation Testing and Sampling Tool Enables Real-Time Permeability and Anistropy Measurements"; 2000 SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference; Mar. 21-23, 2000; pp. 1-16; SPE 59701; Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.; Midland, Texas, U.S.A.|
|37||Mark A. Proett et al.; "New Exact Spherical Flow Solution With Storage and Skin For Early-Time Interpretation With Applications to Wireline Formation and Early-Evaluation Drillstem Testing"; 1998 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition; Sep. 27-30, 1998; pp. 463-478; SPE 49140; Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.; New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.|
|38||Mark A. Proett et al.; "New Exact Spherical Flow Solution With Storage For Early-Time Interpretation With Applications to Early-Evaluation Drillstem Testing and Wireline Formation Testing"; 1998 SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference; Mar. 25-27, 1998; pp. 167-181; SPE 39768; Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.; Midland, Texas, U.S.A.|
|39||Mark A. Proett et al.; "New Wireline Formation Testing Tool With Advanced Sampling Technology"; 1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition; Oct. 3-6, 1999; pp. 1-16; SPE 56711; Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.; Houston, Texas, U.S.A.|
|40||Mark A. Proett et al.; "Real Time Pressure Transient Analysis Methods Applied to Wireline Formation Test Data"; 69th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers; Sep. 25-28, 1994; pp. 1-16; SPE 28449; Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.; New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.|
|41||Mark A. Proett et al.; "Supercharge Pressure Compensation Using a New Wireline Testing Method and Newly Developed Early Time Spherical Flow Model"; 1996 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition; Oct. 6-9, 1996; pp. 329-342; SPE 36524; Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.; Denver, Colorado, U.S.A.|
|42||Mark Proett et al.; "Formation Pressure Testing In The Dynamic Drilling Environment"; 2004 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference; Mar. 2-4, 2004; pp. 1-11; IADC/SPE 87090; Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.; Dallas, Texas, U.S.A.|
|43||P. Cooke-Yarborough; "Some 'Quick-Look' and Wellsite Applications of Wireline Formation Testing Tools With Emphasis on Permeability Indicators as an Aid to Choosing Net Pay Discriminations"; Proceedings Indonesian Petroleum Association; Thirteenth Annual Convention; May 1994; pp. 1-16.|
|44||P. S. Lapshin et al.; "Study of the Effect of Variable Inflow on Accuracy of Determining Formation Parameters with Formation Testers"; 1971; pp. 11-14; No. 1; Nefteprom. Delo; Russia. (Partial translation attached).|
|45||P.S. Varlamov et al.; "Formation Testing During Deep Well Drilling"; 1983; pp. 118-124; No. 39; Russia. (Partial translation attached).|
|46||Peter A. Goode et al.; "Influence of an Invaded Zone on a Multiprobe Formation Tester"; SPE Formation Evaluation, Mar. 1996; pp. 31-40.|
|47||R. Desbrandes et al.; "Field Applications of Wireline Formation Testers in Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs"; 1991 SPE Gas Technology Symposium; Jan. 23-25, 1991; pp. 223-236; SPE 21502; Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.; Houston, Texas, U.S.A.|
|48||R. Desbrandes et al.; "Wettability and Productivity Characterization of Low Permeability Gas Formations: Annual Report"; Gas Research Institute; Report GRI-91/0135; Mar. 6, 1991.|
|49||R. Desbrandes et al; "Measurement While Drilling"; Studies in Abnormal Pressures. Developments in Petroleum Science, 38; 1994; pp. 251-279; Elsevier Science B.V.|
|50||R. Desbrandes, et al.; "A New Concept in Wireline Formation Testing: Extended Drawdown," 13th CWLS Formation Evaluation Symp.; 1991; Calgary, Canada; pp. 1-25.|
|51||R. Desbrandes; "Invasion Diameter and Supercharging in Time-Lapse MWD/LWD Logging"; Proceedings, Measurement While Drilling Symposium; Feb. 26-27, 1990; pp. 115-135; Louisiana State University; Baton Rouge, Louisiana, U.S.A.|
|52||R. Desbrandes; "Wireline Formation Testing: A New Extended Drawdown Technique"; Petroleum Engineer International; pp. 40-44; May 1991.|
|53||Rob Badry et al; "New Wireline Formation Tester Techniques and Applications"; 1993 SPWLA Annual Symposium; Jun. 13-16, 1993; pp. 1-15; Calgary, Alberta, Canada.|
|54||Robert C. Earlougher, Jr.; "Advances In Well Test Analysis"; Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME; 1997; New York, New York, U.S.A. and Dallas, Texas, U.S.A.|
|55||S. Haddad et al; "So What Is The Reservoir Permeability?"; 2000 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition; Oct. 1-4, 2000; pp. 1-13; SPE 63138; Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.; Dallas, Texas, U.S.A.|
|56||S.W. Burnie, "Estimation of Reservoir Productivity, Fluid Composition, and Reserves in Sour Gas Formations Using the MDT (Modular Formation Dynamics Tester) Tool and a Comparison with the Completed Well Performance"; 1<SUP>st </SUP>CSPG/CWLS Exploration, Evaluation & Exploitation Joint Symposium; May 28-31, 1995; 1 p (Abstract Only); Calgary, Canada.|
|57||T. M. Whittle et al.; "Will Wireline Formation Tests Replace Well Tests?"; 2003 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition; Oct. 5-8, 2003; pp. 57-58; SPE 84086; Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.; Denver, Colorado, U.S.A.|
|58||T. Zimmerman et al.; "Application of Emerging Wireline Formation Testing Technologies"; Eighth Offshore South East Asia Conference; Dec. 4-7, 1990; pp. 83-95; OSEA 90105; Offshore South East Asia; Singapore.|
|59||V. D. Banchenko et al.; "Results of Using Strata Testers Mounted on Tubes Lowered Into Boreholes in the Southern Mangyshlak Field"; 1982; pp. 28-29; No. 8; ISSN- 0521-8136; Burenie; Russia (Partial translation attached).|
|60||Yi Shaoguo et al.; "A New Flow Model of Pressure Response to Wireline Formation Testing"; Journal of Jiaghan Petroleum Institute; vol. 19, No. 3; Sep. 1997; pp. 42-45. (Partial translation attached).|
|Citing Patent||Filing date||Publication date||Applicant||Title|
|US8272438 *||Sep 27, 2007||Sep 25, 2012||Schlumberger Technology Corporation||System and method for robustly and accurately obtaining a pore pressure measurement of a subsurface formation penetrated by a wellbore|
|US8678085||Dec 9, 2010||Mar 25, 2014||David E. Mouton||Well control operational and training aid|
|US8727037||May 3, 2011||May 20, 2014||David E. Mouton||Well control operational and training aid|
|US20100018702 *||Sep 27, 2007||Jan 28, 2010||John Cook||System and method for robustly and accurately obtaining a pore pressure measurement of a subsurface formation penetrated by a wellbore|
|WO2011029026A1 *||Sep 3, 2010||Mar 10, 2011||M-I L.L.C.||Scale-up device for testing bit balling characteristics|
|WO2011040924A1 *||Oct 1, 2009||Apr 7, 2011||Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.||Determining anisotropy with a formation tester in a deviated borehole|
|WO2013154918A1 *||Apr 5, 2013||Oct 17, 2013||Schlumberger Canada Limited||Distinguishing mud filtrate from formation water by multi-doi nmr|
|U.S. Classification||175/50, 73/152.22, 175/48, 73/152.03, 73/152.19, 166/250.07, 166/100|
|International Classification||E21B49/10, E21B44/00|
|Oct 25, 2005||AS||Assignment|
Owner name: HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC., TEXAS
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:MCGREGOR, MALCOLM DOUGLAS;GRAY, GLENN C.;STONE, JAMES E.;AND OTHERS;REEL/FRAME:016679/0928;SIGNING DATES FROM 20050706 TO 20051018
|Jan 3, 2011||FPAY||Fee payment|
Year of fee payment: 4
|Dec 31, 2014||FPAY||Fee payment|
Year of fee payment: 8